Two fire tragedies; two different sentencing systems

An eerie similarity exists between two massive fire tragedies that devastated nearly 200 families – Uphaar fire in Delhi and Kumbakonam school fire in Tamil Nadu.

| TNN | Aug 4, 2014, 02.41 AM IST

94 children were charred to death in a school fire in Kumbakonam in Tamil Nadu in 2004.

NEW DELHI: An eerie similarity exists between two massive fire tragedies that devastated nearly 200 families - Uphaar fire in Delhi and Kumbakonam school fire in Tamil Nadu.

Seven years and 2,500 km separated them. On June 13, 1997, a massive fire in Uphaar theatre killed 59 people. They were trapped as the exits in the cinema hall were blocked by additional seats illegally installed to make extra bucks.

The trial went on for 10 years and drained the victims' relatives of energy, resolve and money. On November 20, 2007, a Delhi court convicted the accused, including owners of the theatre Sushil and Gopal Ansal, and sentenced them to two years in prison.

In March 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. But a two-judge bench was split over the quantum of punishment - whether the accused should get one year or two years prison term.

On July 16, 2004, a massive fire in a school building in Kumbakonam killed 94 children. This trial took 10 years. On July 30, 2014, a Thanjavur trial court convicted 10 persons, including the owner and principal of Sri Krishna Middle School.

The court found the accused negligent as the school building had inadequate exits which impeded escape of children. The gates of the school were locked when the accident happened.

The causes behind the two tragedies were similar. Then why did a Delhi trial court award two years imprisonment to convicts in Uphaar fire case? And, why did a Thanjavur court impose 10 years sentence in the Kumbakonam case?

We are aware that no two crimes are similar. We also know that judges not only weigh gravity of the offence but also keep in mind past criminal record of the accused, his age and possibility of he getting reformed while quantifying a sentence, which they feel would assuage society's cry for justice.

Negligence was the cause of fire behind both the tragedies. If that was so, then something is amiss when one trial court awards two years jail term for death of 59 persons and another imposes 10 years imprisonment for death of 94 children.

The sentencing history of Indian judiciary, for that matter in other countries, is replete with such incidents where people feel that there was no uniform sentencing policy, giving birth to wide disparity in punishment awarded to persons convicted for similar crimes, though separated by time.

Disparity in sentencing drew the Supreme Court's attention in State of Punjab vs Prem Sagar [2008(7) SCC 550] case. It had said, "What would be the effect of the sentencing on society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The superior courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing.

"Whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in regard to imposition of fine.

"However, in India, the view always has been that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Applicability of the said principle in all situations, however, is open to question. Judicial discretion must be exercised objectively having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case."

In Dalbir Singh vs State of Haryana [(2000) 5 SCC 82], the apex court had a few words of caution for automobile drivers.

Abhorring the leniency shown to drivers causing injury and death of pedestrians by rash and negligent driving, the court had said, "The driver must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle, he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles."

If that was the SC's advice for trial courts in cases of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, then should there be leniency for fire accidents caused by negligence? Can there be any mitigating factor when the fire is caused by greed and callousness, ignoring the safety of patrons in a cinema hall?

We will soon learn whether Kumbakonam verdict has some effect on other cases, including Uphaar fire tragedy which is pending in the SC for determination of the quantum of punishment.

Time is ripe to act on the recommendations of the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, 2003. It had emphasized the need to have sentencing guidelines to minimize uncertainty in awarding sentences. It had recommended appointment of a statutory committee to lay down sentencing guidelines.

RELATED

From around the web

More from The Times of India

Recommended By Colombia

From Around the Web

More From The Times of India

Recommended By Colombia

Comments

Characters Remaining: 3000

OR PROCEED WITHOUT REGISTRATION

Share on Twitter

SIGN IN WITH

FacebookGoogleEmail

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.